Editorial Reason to be Pessimistic?

[mister lamat]

pessimistic? no, no reason at all.

oh god... not fun! make the fun fucking stop!!! it burns!

 

[Twinfalls]

mister lamat: bringing the peanut-brained to the peanut gallery since 2006!

 

[mister lamat]

2003.

i repeat... oh god, not fun! that shit is worse than cancer.

 

[RGE]

Re: Interesting Quetions

Are you happy to see both Super Mutants and the Brotherhood of Steel on the East coast, against all odds? Do you really want familiar faces at the cost of plausibility/continuity?

Having only played through FO1 and FO2, I'm not sure why this is "against all odds." But these elements are the iconic bits of the original story. I guess I would have to see this in action to determine if it felt plausible to me.

Oh come on! It's obvious that the (sterile) super mutants would have died from old age after 115 years. And the Brotherhood of Steel would certainly not be around after such a long time had passed. And even if they were, there's no way they could've sent people that far east. Or grown as an organisation into some kind of Desert Rangers. Nope. They'll just remain the same as they were back in good ole' 2162. Written in stone. A stone hidden in a vault, safe from the ravages of time and Bethesda Softworks. A stone called "Nostalgia".

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Re: Interesting Quetions

Are you happy to see both Super Mutants and the Brotherhood of Steel on the East coast, against all odds? Do you really want familiar faces at the cost of plausibility/continuity?

Having only played through FO1 and FO2, I'm not sure why this is "against all odds." But these elements are the iconic bits of the original story. I guess I would have to see this in action to determine if it felt plausible to me.

Oh come on! It's obvious that the (sterile) super mutants would have died from old age after 115 years. And the Brotherhood of Steel would certainly not be around after such a long time had passed. And even if they were, there's no way they could've sent people that far east. Or grown as an organisation into some kind of Desert Rangers. Nope. They'll just remain the same as they were back in good ole' 2162. Written in stone. A stone hidden in a vault, safe from the ravages of time and Bethesda Softworks. A stone called "Nostalgia".

Nostalgia has nothing to do with how things are designed. The Brotherhood was always a cloistered, techno-religious group who didn't care much about the outside world. That was always been a characteristic of the Brotherhood. It's why, despite Maxson's desire to have a more active stance regarding the mutant threat in Fallout 1, they did not get involved with outside events. It's why they sent an outsider to search for a holodisk in The Glow, it's why they asked the same outsider to gather information regarding the Master's Amy before they decided to deal with the invasion - and even then, all the Elders could muster was the deployment of 4 Brotherhood paladins against a large army of Super Mutants. And it was only after many of the mutants got destroyed that the Brotherhood took action and helped drive them out eastward.

It's also the very same reason why they have lost much of their power in Fallout 2, since it's explicitly mentioned they have become vulnerable to the Enclave's machinations because of their monastic, isolationist attitude.

You call it nostalgia, others call it a defining element of the group. Just as defining as it was of the Rangers to have an active role in fighting Slavers, and of Slavers to hunt tribals and trying to undermine Ranger operations.

Does this mean the Brotherhood itself, or a splinter cell could not have gone elsewhere? No. But then the story would be riding on dubious plausibility by introducing "what if?" scenarios that run contrary to what has been established in the setting. It's setting a precedent to pretty much change the defining elements of these groups and characters for no good reason other than "we want to". That's great if someone is out to defend the rights and virtues of artistic freedom but good luck trying to hold on to any shred of continuity or characterization. Feel free to welcome tapdancing Super Mutants who lug around World War 2 weapons and go back in time in a Tardis to re-create East Side Story with the Master and the Vault Dweller as the romantic pair. By your comments, you'd be on the first row lapping that shit up and calling it Fallout 3.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't actually know that these things are missing.

As in, their absence or apparent mishandling is news to you, you hadn't noticed them before or are you comfortable with the change?

This still seems reasonable to me. If my father disappeared, I would want to find him. Any plot device probably assumes that there is additional back story that will need to be filled in.

But would the character? I believe that's the key issue. There's not much of a sense of role-playing if the role forcefully requires the player to care about something or someone he doesn't care about or hasn't been given the time to care about -- or alternatively, that he can express his own view and empathy (or lack thereof). Of course, there's no word on if the latter will be possible (much like it was possible to ignore or betray the populace of Vault 13 in the original game) but the former is already shaping up to be a letdown.

 

[somnus_lethe]

As in, their absence or apparent mishandling is news to you, you hadn't noticed them before or are you comfortable with the change?

You specifically mentioned the vault dweller suit, and some of the concept art I saw had a guy in a vault dweller suit. It would in fact seem odd to have these things missing. The absence or apparent mishandling is not obvious to me at this point. I recognize that this game is going to look and feel very different. I just don't know yet that the kitchy details will be completely missing.

But would the character? I believe that's the key issue. There's not much of a sense of role-playing if the role forcefully requires the player to care about something or someone he doesn't care about or hasn't been given the time to care about -- or alternatively, that he can express his own view and empathy (or lack thereof). Of course, there's no word on if the latter will be possible (much like it was possible to ignore or betray the populace of Vault 13 in the original game) but the former is already shaping up to be a letdown.

This seems to be a recurring sore point, so I will try to better express why this plot device seems reasonable to me. The starting point in an RPG of this sort usually implies that you are in some way special. In FO1 or FO2, there is no real reason for it, you just are. This is, of course, the central conceit of this type of game. You have to leave the vault. Going in search of a family member makes as much sense as anything else, and removes the arbitrary "you are special because you tagged barter, speech and small guns." If there are no options about what can happen when you find your father, then I'll have some serious issues.

To be truthful, I don't know (which seems to be the most common phrase associated with this game at this point) that the initial "go find your dad" plot will be compelling. I do think that with some effort on the developers part it makes an acceptable starting point.

 

[mister lamat]

if you take the events of fallout 2 into account, the rise of the NCR is the most compelling reason for the Brotherhood to pack up and leave. if they were going to leave silicon valley, the beltway is home to an incredible number of r&d firms for the us military. how would they know this? books. if you can keep power armour running after the fall of civilization, i'd imagine keeping books wouldn't pose much of a challenge.

 

[Ausir]

Fallout is in an alternate timeline. There probably was no silicon valley.

 

[Section8]

Most of your questions are straw-man arguments, but I'll humor them anyway. No. One of the great things about an FPS is pulling off a great headshot without the computer "doing it for you."

First up, why the "straw-man" argument? The questions are certainly geared toward certain (obvious) answers, but I wouldn't say they're irrelevant. The thrust of these first few questions are to question the validity of and motivation of providing alternate modes of play for two different types of gamer.

I have no idea how well the proposed hybrid system will work. Nobody knows, we're all just guessing. I am not filled with hope, but somebody, somewhere might just create a decent hybrid. I think the combat system in FO was (at least to some degree) a product of its time. Does Bethesda have a track record that says they have the chops to be the next great innovator? Nope.

We may be guessing, but it's not as though we can't make informed guesses. Even without taking Bethesda's track record into account, is it fair of me to say that VATS sounds like a clear alternative to traditional FPS aim 'n' shoot gameplay, rather than being complementary?

Take FEAR for instance, with its adrenaline bar. You can slow things down for a limited time to gain a significant advantage. You have a limited resource that regenerates over time that requires tactical deployment at opportune moments.

Now look at VATS. The purpose of the system isn't to provide an advantage to players who tactically deploy their limited AP resource. As best I can understand, it's an alternative for players who either can't or are unwilling to aim 'n' shoot FPS style. However, the minute you include an alternative that can be accessed at any point in the game, then knowing the right moment to employ each one becomes part of the gameplay.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? It's certainly encouraging metagaming on the players part, and to that extent, I think it's poor design. It steers away from the desirable "single, non-ambiguous game rule" and into the territory of loopholes, exceptions and dare I say it, exploits.

Frankly, if FO3 is as good as Deus Ex (the first one and not the second) or SS2, I will be thrilled beyond words. That dosn't mean it will really be what I hope FO3 could be, but it would be a fun game.

Don't get me wrong here, of course I'd love more games to the standard of SS2, and I'd even settle for Deus Ex, although I can't confess to being a huge fan of it. However, this isn't about hope in a vacuum, this is about what we've heard and what it implies and indicates. And from my perspective, Bethesda are showing yet again that they haven't really thought their design through.

It's not innovation. Do we want innovation? We want a good game, and innovate and fun are not synonymous.

It's not innovation, but there are plenty of people who believe it to be, without putting any thought toward their opinion, and try to justify the exclusion of something many people find fun, such as turn-based, as the result of innovation.

Random is still random. This is where things get a bit dicey for me. Most random number generators are fairly streaky. I could see a hybrid system where a point blank shot would always hit, but something like a critical chance would still be random.

Here's the biggest difference. When taking a shot in Fallout, you're using the interface in choosing what to attempt. They may bemoan their rotten luck when the attempt fails, but that's about it. Taking a shot in a real-time, first-person game constitutes a challenge to the player. If they succeed at that challenge, only to have it taken away from them, then they're going to be pissed. It's like bowling a strike and having the scoring machine mark it down as a 9.

The "always hit / chance of critical" idea is better, but it requires a couple of things. First of all, adequate feedback. The player needs to understand why their headshot isn't always a one-shot kill. Secondly, it needs to be duplicated in the VATS system.

They're slapping their "story-based" mode on Fallout with regard to character generation. In previous Bethesda games it was only fun once. But I also bet you can blast through it and then just tweak the stats to your liking at the end. Or at the very least, save before the final tweak and then just reload and restart from there.

In that case, why not include an option to skip the prologue? I took issue with Oblivion's "rebuild your character at the end of the first dungeon" because actually playing through the first dungeon was an integral part of developing your character. You're guaranteed to have advanced a level, based on your previously chosen skills, and it's pretty likely you have an inventory full of things to suit your previous character.

So what it boils down to, is that it's advantageous to go through the prologue, and thus the character is rewarded for something they're not likely to enjoy. Poor design. Of course, it's trivial to fix, but it's also trivial to get right in the first place.

Well, for me at least, the dialog trees were still pretty much a keyword system. I enjoyed the writing, but was never really at a loss for which response provoked the particular reaction I was looking for.

Huh? Dialogue trees aren't about obfuscating your intent, they're about making a conversation seem like a conversation. Given that most game developers will spend many dozens of man-hours trying to create photorealistic 3D content, is there any reason to take an austere approach to something as cheaply produced as dialogue?

Frankly, I think this is the one area where they will probably get the most "right." These kinds of touches are all about background details, and for all their glaring faults, Bethesda does pay attention to details.

So far they've only proven themselves capable of "paying attention" to the most straightforward of icons in the intro-movie - the adverts, a couple of valves, and a lone bit of art-deco. They've also showed that they want to reinvent other, more complex icons such as Supermutants and Power Armour to fit their own style. Which is more important? The billboards and trash that will fade into the background, or the characters you'll be directly interacting with?

And again, it's indicative of a certain attitude. The elements likely to be considered "lame", "old-fashioned" or "whatever" by people who buy into cool are background elements, while the "cool" stuff, is in your face. It seem to imply an approach of "Sure, Fallout fans we'll give you what you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with our next-gen audience."

Postmodernism is all about taking bits and pieces from everywhere. Nothing (even FO) is really original in pop culture.

I'm not talking about original. I'm talking about distinct. Is a blond-haired, blue eyed person likely to stir more public interest in Sweden or Japan? For the same reason, stylistic elements taken from 50s Americana and sci-fi are going to stand out when compared with the far more prevalent contemporary influences on most game art.

If you're deriving from something that nobody else is, it may as well be original in the eyes of many.

It's their plot device. It does seem less drastic than the big crisis of a water chip, but seeking out a lost family member at least seems like a plausible way to start a story.

It's not a problem with the plausibility of the situation, it's the fact that it makes so many other player-authored alternatives implausible. Would you be disappointed if the game also fixed your character stats to a pre-defined build "essential" to the plot?

It is a pretty obvious moral choice. But FO had obvious ones too. It would only be speculative to see if the more interesting moral objectives are a part of the new game.

I'm not ruling out the presence of better moral choices, but you have to question why a developer wouldn't put their best foot forward. Especially given that Bethesda themselves threatened legal action in their scuffle with a Russian website who posted screenshots that didn't paint Oblivion in the best possible light.

And therein lies the crux of the concerns many of us have. Since Bethesda have complete control over what they show off, and are being so incredibly miserly with the release of info - why show the unfavourable bits?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You specifically mentioned the vault dweller suit, and some of the concept art I saw had a guy in a vault dweller suit. It would in fact seem odd to have these things missing.

Actually, I specifically mentioned the Vault jumpsuit. To a casual observer this might seem something of no consequence. And you know what? It might even be somewhat trivial in the grand scheme of things since there are other '50's pulp comic inspirations in Fallout. However, it's an undeniably iconic aspect of the setting since it represents the entire Vault populace and system. In fact, before the Chosen One in Fallout 2 is sent forth to find the G.E.C.K. for his village he must past a series of tests - the outcome of which is acquiring the Vault jumpsuit left behind by the original Vault Dweller, something that's considered sacred by the tribe. Vault City itself still uses them.

And eventually we have to ask ourselves, if the deviation or elimination of 'trivial' aspects grows into more than one or two elements and begins to move far away from the most recognizable stylistic elements, what's going to be the difference between Fallout and other post-apocalyptic games?

If there are no options about what can happen when you find your father, then I'll have some serious issues.

Quite.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

if you take the events of fallout 2 into account, the rise of the NCR is the most compelling reason for the Brotherhood to pack up and leave.

Actually, I think internal schisms within the Brotherhood and the Enclave's insurgence would have actually toppled its power structure and splintered it into a couple of bickering factions. Maxson surely must have had supporters during the mutant threat and the Elders were quite likely questioned after they were too slow to act. The Enclave would probably have just sped up the process since their threat was significant and played an important part in showing the Brotherhood that their old ways were possibly wrong, and perhaps more than ever they needed to play a more active role. The Vertibird plans could have been instrumental in their expansion, or in their search for more technology they could use.

I don't have anything against some change being inserted into the setting but it should be reasonable and take into account the possibility of further advancements. It's not a problem with suggesting the Brotherhood would branch somewhere else but at some point you begin dealing with too many situations to account for. And once those are expired, what do you have? A Brotherhood that potentially has nothing to do with the original and is now just another trigger happy faction in the wasteland. Do we need another one of those? What's so special about turning a unique faction into another "durr we hate them muties kill them muthas!"?

 

[aries202]

As in, their absence or apparent mishandling is news to you, you hadn't noticed them before or are you comfortable with the change?

You specifically mentioned the vault dweller suit, and some of the concept art I saw had a guy in a vault dweller suit. It would in fact seem odd to have these things missing. The absence or apparent mishandling is not obvious to me at this point. I recognize that this game is going to look and feel very different. I just don't know yet that the kitchy details will be completely missing.

But would the character? I believe that's the key issue. There's not much of a sense of role-playing if the role forcefully requires the player to care about something or someone he doesn't care about or hasn't been given the time to care about -- or alternatively, that he can express his own view and empathy (or lack thereof). Of course, there's no word on if the latter will be possible (much like it was possible to ignore or betray the populace of Vault 13 in the original game) but the former is already shaping up to be a letdown.

This seems to be a recurring sore point, so I will try to better express why this plot device seems reasonable to me. The starting point in an RPG of this sort usually implies that you are in some way special. In FO1 or FO2, there is no real reason for it, you just are. This is, of course, the central conceit of this type of game. You have to leave the vault. Going in search of a family member makes as much sense as anything else, and removes the arbitrary "you are special because you tagged barter, speech and small guns." If there are no options about what can happen when you find your father, then I'll have some serious issues.

To be truthful, I don't know (which seems to be the most common phrase associated with this game at this point) that the initial "go find your dad" plot will be compelling. I do think that with some effort on the developers part it makes an acceptable starting point.

In Fallout 1, you weren't special just because you had tagged some skills, traits and perks. You literally got the short end od the stick and were forced out of the safety
of Vault 13, being thrown out of the Vault in order to find a (new) waterchip. Fallout 2's story had kind of the some plot outline, pushing you out in the wasteland...

My problem with a 19 year old going voluntarily : out into the urban jungle in search
of his father is this: Most 19 year olds won't do this - as they will sing happy dances if & when their parents (father or mother) has gone away... It simply does not compute..

 

[mister lamat]

the change is valid... lame ass 'alternative timelines means shit don't exist' aside... a move to the east coast would be something of a holy grail for the brotherhood. power, information and all those lovely deep dark secrets. military tech aside, the beltway is home to the collective works of the american empire. art, literature, history, medical research and the former base of power for a entire nation reside there in spades. to me, it's not really a question of why, but rather 'when'. even the most conservative factions, taking into account the rise of the ncr, would see it as something of a mecca... even more so when they're about to build 'shattered earth suburbs' on top of your super secret bunker. the promise of paradise will fuel the most outrageous shit, see homeboys strapping c4 to their chest hoping for seventy-two virgin poopers to menace.

there's no need for vertibirds or derrigables really. if two dudes and a chick named sacagewa can cross the continent with no advanced medicine, flint locks and zero idea where they're going, i'd imagine it's cake for guys with lasers, power armour and a map. one of the brotherhood's reasons for existence is knowing shit other people don't and when you start to lose that edge with no hope of maintaining it, you move on.

Most 19 year olds won't do this - as they will sing happy dances Smile if & when their parents (father or mother) has gone away... It simply does not compute..

no offense dude, but your family must fucking suck. could be the shallow end of the gene pool, could be alcohol abuse but i think your preconceptions of family runs counter to the human experience.

*edit to increase contrary opinion level...

the vault suit, pretty sure that's a hand me down. it's a little too big and looks like it's been patched up a few times. if they can run out of water chips i'm sure they can run out of form fitting clothing which shows off your pc's adonis or venus like physique. hell, maybe it was even an experiment... what happens to people when they're forced to walk around nekkid, all day every day.

the orc... hmm... people being turned into huge green monsters due to the species corruption and search for perfection being led by a human* who turned on his own kind... i think i've heard that one before somewhere. granted, it's not "we're pissy soccer hoolies grown from fungus and hell bent on galactic domination" orky... but in the broad strokes it borrows heavily from tolkein's works. keywords being 'broad strokes', but feel free to deliver reams of pendantry and minutia about how they're thematically different.

*said human even has magic powers... seriously, he can melt shit with his mind.

 

[somnus_lethe]

In Fallout 1, you weren't special just because you had tagged some skills, traits and perks. You literally got the short end od the stick and were forced out of the safety
of Vault 13, being thrown out of the Vault in order to find a (new) waterchip. Fallout 2's story had kind of the some plot outline, pushing you out in the wasteland...

My problem with a 19 year old going voluntarily : out into the urban jungle in search
of his father is this: Most 19 year olds won't do this - as they will sing happy dances if & when their parents (father or mother) has gone away... It simply does not compute..

But why you? Why not some other person in the Vault, or in your tribe?

I guess I just don't see the percentages in skewing the start of the game because somebody feels a compelling need to play a character who hates their family. It's as arbitrary as any other starting condition, and if you can ignore the search once you know more about your Father, well, that's an option too.

 

[somnus_lethe]

First up, why the "straw-man" argument? The questions are certainly geared toward certain (obvious) answers, but I wouldn't say they're irrelevant. The thrust of these first few questions are to question the validity of and motivation of providing alternate modes of play for two different types of gamer.

Actually, by definition, we're all tossing about straw men, since we really don't have anything solid we're arguing against and we're just propping up whatever bits of evidence fit our premises. So my assertion wasn't really a fair one.

We may be guessing, but it's not as though we can't make informed guesses. Even without taking Bethesda's track record into account, is it fair of me to say that VATS sounds like a clear alternative to traditional FPS aim 'n' shoot gameplay, rather than being complementary?

I'm just not sure how valid even an informed guess is at this point.

Now look at VATS. The purpose of the system isn't to provide an advantage to players who tactically deploy their limited AP resource. As best I can understand, it's an alternative for players who either can't or are unwilling to aim 'n' shoot FPS style. However, the minute you include an alternative that can be accessed at any point in the game, then knowing the right moment to employ each one becomes part of the gameplay.

Okay, but here again, I don't see what's particularly positive or negative. It's going to be a real-timeish kind of game. I am completely with you on the whole "this really isn't Fallout." But I also have no real idea what it's going to be.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? It's certainly encouraging metagaming on the players part, and to that extent, I think it's poor design. It steers away from the desirable "single, non-ambiguous game rule" and into the territory of loopholes, exceptions and dare I say it, exploits.

Very true.

It's not innovation, but there are plenty of people who believe it to be, without putting any thought toward their opinion, and try to justify the exclusion of something many people find fun, such as turn-based, as the result of innovation.

I still think somebody might come up with a good hybrid someday. But probably not.

In that case, why not include an option to skip the prologue? I took issue with Oblivion's "rebuild your character at the end of the first dungeon" because actually playing through the first dungeon was an integral part of developing your character. You're guaranteed to have advanced a level, based on your previously chosen skills, and it's pretty likely you have an inventory full of things to suit your previous character.

So what it boils down to, is that it's advantageous to go through the prologue, and thus the character is rewarded for something they're not likely to enjoy. Poor design. Of course, it's trivial to fix, but it's also trivial to get right in the first place.

In the limitless levels of Oblivion, the first dungeon ended up being a pretty trivial part of the overall build. But in something that is (hopefully) more focused and limited the intro just might be far more important.

Huh? Dialogue trees aren't about obfuscating your intent, they're about making a conversation seem like a conversation. Given that most game developers will spend many dozens of man-hours trying to create photorealistic 3D content, is there any reason to take an austere approach to something as cheaply produced as dialogue?

Then I misunderstood your point. I agree that the writing should be a major focus.

I'm not talking about original. I'm talking about distinct. Is a blond-haired, blue eyed person likely to stir more public interest in Sweden or Japan? For the same reason, stylistic elements taken from 50s Americana and sci-fi are going to stand out when compared with the far more prevalent contemporary influences on most game art.

If you're deriving from something that nobody else is, it may as well be original in the eyes of many.

Well, there's a lot of pop-culture from the 50's and 60's surrounding Atomic issues that could certainly make the game distinct. I still see it as largely unoriginal, but it's a fine line.

It's not a problem with the plausibility of the situation, it's the fact that it makes so many other player-authored alternatives implausible. Would you be disappointed if the game also fixed your character stats to a pre-defined build "essential" to the plot?

These are not really similar alternatives. With all the dearth of information coming out, we do know that your build is not "pre-defined" and hence this is a nonsensical assertion.

And therein lies the crux of the concerns many of us have. Since Bethesda have complete control over what they show off, and are being so incredibly miserly with the release of info - why show the unfavourable bits?

Probably because they hope their target audience finds these bits compelling. Which of course, begs another rather obvious question addressed elsewhere on these boards.

 

[RGE]

Re: Interesting Quetions

Feel free to welcome tapdancing Super Mutants who lug around World War 2 weapons and go back in time in a Tardis to re-create East Side Story with the Master and the Vault Dweller as the romantic pair. By your comments, you'd be on the first row lapping that shit up and calling it Fallout 3.

Awesome! Reminds me of the singing transvestites in Escape from New York! :D

I've heard that USA was somewhat isolationistic before the Great War, not wanting to meddle in the messy European affairs and worldwide empires. But that changed in much less than 115 years. It's really the "implausible" part that I'm reacting against whenever people complain about BoS on the east coast. Because it's not that implausible. In 115 years the elders would have died and the BoS would be run by their grandchildren's grandchildren. And those kids would probably have very different ideas of how to run the organization, given that the BoS do have contact with the outside world and aren't completely isolated. But perhaps the Catholic Church and the Pope would be a better comparison? I don't know how much they've changed in 115 years. Maybe not much at all?

The super mutants would probably all have died out by that time though. As violent as they apparently are, they would've either vanquished everything in their path, or been killed off during the 115 years. Unless BethSoft decided that they're not sterile after all, much like Marcus said. Of course, I could come up with another excuse for why there are still super mutants around: Perhaps they had filled the tank of a truck with FEV-dip sauce, and when they fled eastwards a bunch of them were strapped in front of that truck, pulling it like a wagon? Then they could've created more super mutants by dipping any prisoners.

And that Mister Burke guy, isn't he working for the new 'Master'? The new science guy who's been messing with the old FEV to make leaner and meaner super mutants? Blowing up Megaton is obviously just a test to see which side the PC is on. The dark side of the force, or the wrong side. After all, Mister Burke has the fusion pulse charge with which to arm the bomb, and he's able to pass all those super mutants and arrive at the Galaxy News Radio Building before the PC, where he then hands the detonator to the PC. If blowing up Megaton was all he really wanted, he could obviously have done that by himself. No need to divulge his plans to a stranger and risk being shot or put in jail by the local sheriff. A test, obviously. Not at all a quest with plotholes the size of Megaton craters. See, now I too have reasons to be pessmistic!

Next up: the dog. Wouldn't it be an awesomely fresh idea to have the player play the dog, and have the Vault Dweller be controlled by the computer? The Player Dog could then run around and yap whenever the VD need to come closer, or the PD could growl in order to warn the VD of nearby dangers. "What's that, Lassie? There's a fresh toilet bowl down there? Great!" ... Uhm. You can't steal this idea now! I'm gonna use it for my own game!

 

[Littlefizz]

The super mutants would probably all have died out by that time though. As violent as they apparently are, they would've either vanquished everything in their path, or been killed off during the 115 years.

Is it really that important?

The only thing I find really hard to agree with most fallout fanboys is that need to make everything plausible... ok, fallout 1 set the canon in that area and fallout 2 was crap, but I think there are more important things to worry about the new fallout than "omg! the supermutants should have died!".

who the fuck cares whether the supermutants are sterile or not when they are glorified orcs...
Would it really make a TB isometric C&C fallout which almost got the setting right but with fertile supermutants a non-fallout game?

 

[kingcomrade]

who the fuck cares whether the supermutants are sterile or not when they are glorified orcs...

People who give a shit about Fallout.

 

[aries202]

who the fuck cares whether the supermutants are sterile or not when they are glorified orcs...

People who give a shit about Fallout.

To me, and to other Fallout fans, it isn't only about whether or not the supermutants are being sterile or not. It is also because Bethesda claims to make a sequel to the original games, called Fallout 3. A sequeel needs imo to be in line with much (or all) of the lore established in the Fallout universe, set by the originals creators of Fallout 1.

They clearly made the supermutants sterile because they were dipped in something (I thinK?) or exposed to the Forced Evolutionary Virus (FEV). The thing is that now when Bethesda/Zenimax Media owns the IP they can do anything they like to the Fallout IP.

They can decide that supermutants weren't really sterile at all, and that the BoS actually either went to the East to hunt supermutants after Fallout 1 or that there is another chapter of the BoS on the East Cos in the US.

Even if this goes against anything that Boyarsky & Cain made to be true in the Fallout universe, thus they can make it so that there are NO continuity and ties back to the other games.

If they indeed wanted to make their own Fallout game, why not call it Fallout: The Washington Era or Fallout: East Cost Years or something like that. It would probably
still be a fun game to play...

 

[mister lamat]

the sterility is related to the allegory, lose that and the role they play is diminished. the fact their symbolic nature is borrowed wholesale isn't all that relevant.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

No rhetoric is needed when the premise is this moronic, I just need to point it out, sit back, and laugh. Although afterwards, I cry a little, too.

Okay, I will explain this using small words. Rhetoric implies logical premises strung together to make a point. Ad hominem attacks are inherently illogical.

Oh hello there, you silly little man. Disregarding for a second the fact that "rhetoric" can be defined as the exact opposite of how you choose to define it (which would suggest to me that you should just stick to "small" words from now on), where exactly did I indulge in an ad hominem argument? Be a dear and point that out for me, please.

Now, seeing how you've obviously missed the point, let me explain it for you; try not to get lost this time, okay?

Your premise has been discussed ad nauseam; such wonderful innovators like Toddy Howard bring it up once in a while when they're working on a new abortion of a game. It is trite. It can be dismissed summarily, and in a mocking manner. No "logical premises strung together to make a point" are needed; one can simply sit back, point, and laugh.

My premise is that major studios no longer make turn based RPG games. I am not implying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a thing. If you would like to point out any major releases at present or in the near future that are turn based RPG games, I'll happily concede the point.

Your argument is that a turn-based combat system was a "product of its time". This implies (and I know what an ace you are at figuring out what words imply, you've shown this much with "rhetoric") that turn-based combat is antiquated; that there is no place for it in the world of tomorrow; that it has been replaced by something superior. This is just not the case.

Also, what's the importance of "major studios"? The fact that no major RPG designer (and there aren't many of them in the first place) uses TB combat certainly doesn't mean that it's somehow passé. Just 'cause the kids like Fitty Cent and the major labels pander to them, doesn't mean classical music is off until further notice. Major studios have become irrelevant to my gaming needs; thankfully, we have a whole slew of indie developers willing to pick up the slack. If the whole thing takes off -- and I hope and think it will -- their games will eventually reach the same level of sophistication as the RPGs of yesteryear we all know and love.

If turn-based combat is now irrelevant to Fallout, then why are so many people clamoring for it? Heck, I know plenty of people who lament the state of the industry, and most of them haven't even heard of the Codex or NMA. No, turn-based combat isn't just "a product of its time", and the fact that "major studios" haven't made a decent RPG in over half a decade doesn't make RPGs a thing of the past, either. "Major studios" have no fucking say over that.

I would like to see a new turn-based Fallout.

Then perhaps you are not a complete waste of oxygen.

It's not going to happen. It might still be a good game, even if it's not turn based. It won't be the game I want, but that also doesn't by default make it terrible.

The fact that it's not turn-based doesn't not add to the fact that it'll be a bad game, it adds to the fact that it'll be a bad Fallout game.

No, real-time combat doesn't make a terrible game (although VATS might); what makes it terrible is Bethesda's involvement. These are people who've done absolutely everything in their power to show that they have not an inkling of a semblance of talent for making good role-playing games. I've never expected anything else. What I'm perturbed about is the fact that thanks to our wonderful copyright system, Fitty Cent now owns the complete works of, say, Beethoven, and he's going to make them his bitch, just 'cause he can. I happen to feel rather strongly about that piece of intellectual property, and the fact that it's legal for Fitty to rape it, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

[somnus_lethe]

Your argument is that a turn-based combat system was a "product of its time". This implies (and I know what an ace you are at figuring out what words imply, you've shown this much with "rhetoric") that turn-based combat is antiquated; that there is no place for it in the world of tomorrow; that it has been replaced by something superior. This is just not the case.

Obviously I did not make my point about turn-based combat being a product of its time sufficiently clear in my initial argument. You loaded my statement with all kinds of additional baggage from other points of view. This was not my implication, so I am attempting to better state my point. I do believe there is a perception (within major game developers) that turn-based gaming is a thing of the past. I think this is a false perception. But a marketing department looks at the sales figures for a game like Oblivion and says "this is what works." Sadly, games that could have changed that perception (like TOEE) are often rushed out and then dismissed as failures.

Also, what's the importance of "major studios"? The fact that no major RPG designer (and there aren't many of them in the first place) uses TB combat certainly doesn't mean that it's somehow passé. Just 'cause the kids like Fitty Cent and the major labels pander to them, doesn't mean classical music is off until further notice. Major studios have become irrelevant to my gaming needs; thankfully, we have a whole slew of indie developers willing to pick up the slack. If the whole thing takes off -- and I hope and think it will -- their games will eventually reach the same level of sophistication as the RPGs of yesteryear we all know and love.

The importance in this case is that a major studio is making Fallout 3. Personally, I really enjoy the games from Spiderweb Studios far more than most of the releases from Bethesda/Atari, etc.

If turn-based combat is now irrelevant to Fallout, then why are so many people clamoring for it? Heck, I know plenty of people who lament the state of the industry, and most of them haven't even heard of the Codex or NMA. No, turn-based combat isn't just "a product of its time", and the fact that "major studios" haven't made a decent RPG in over half a decade doesn't make RPGs a thing of the past, either. "Major studios" have no fucking say over that.

Again, I only brought up major studios because I'm interested in the development of Fallout, and a major studio is making it. The fact that turn-based combat has been relegated to the indie studios is lamentable, but I personally don't see that changing. You are quite correct to point out that lowest common denominator thinking will dominate much of popular media. But the fact that it is big business ultimately means we probably have more choice because independent studios can exist in a wide market. Fallout with real-time combat or VATS won't really feel like Fallout to me.

I would like to see a new turn-based Fallout.
Then perhaps you are not a complete waste of oxygen.

gee, thanks.

The fact that it's not turn-based doesn't not add to the fact that it'll be a bad game, it adds to the fact that it'll be a bad Fallout game.

I think you have a stronger point in that it really won't be a Fallout game at all.

No, real-time combat doesn't make a terrible game (although VATS might); what makes it terrible is Bethesda's involvement. These are people who've done absolutely everything in their power to show that they have not an inkling of a semblance of talent for making good role-playing games. I've never expected anything else. What I'm perturbed about is the fact that thanks to our wonderful copyright system, Fitty Cent now owns the complete works of, say, Beethoven, and he's going to make them his bitch, just 'cause he can. I happen to feel rather strongly about that piece of intellectual property, and the fact that it's legal for Fitty to rape it, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I'm not convinced that Beethoven and Fallout are comparable as equivalent types of art, but I see your point.